More to learn from schools

Just about everybody wants schools to reveal more about themselves. The Federal Government wants them to publish details on class sizes, performance in standardised tests, teacher credentials and student drop-out rates. The State Government has them providing annual reports to parents while omitting comparisons between schools. Parents want to know how their schools are doing, although what they want to know varies enormously. And teachers? Well, teachers want no comparative information published at all.

There is plenty of information parents could get, were they allowed. Schools of all persuasions now have information on individual students' performance on standardised tests in years 3, 5, 10 and 12. They use that information to see whether students have improved or declined, compared with peers throughout their schooling. When the results are aggregated, schools can measure how well different teachers performed in raising their students' academic performance, or not, against the state average. Schooling systems - public and private - also use these figures to make a broad assessment of how individual schools are performing compared with others within the system. But none of this aggregated information is made public.

It is in Britain. In 1994 the British Government started publishing annual league tables showing how well each school did in standardised tests. Educationists criticised them, saying that a school's ranking reflected the wealth of the parents - that being the greatest single predictor of a child's academic performance at school - and whether or not the school was selective. The tables did nothing to show what impact the school had had on the children, they said. The criticism led to changes. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland dropped the tables while England worked on providing "value-added" tables. These tables, published for the first time last month, use the aggregated data showing the changes in a child's academic performance over time - the data that Australian schools have but do not publish.

The tables are still imperfect. They show but one aspect of schooling - academic performance in tests - while ignoring so much else. They do not measure how schools fare in teaching responsibility, respect, honesty, tolerance, equality, freedom and compassion, which are the values parents nominated as most important in the recent government-funded Values Education Report. They do not measure the sense of community a school fosters, nor the amenity the school grounds may provide, nor the quality of the canteen, nor the learning achieved through sport, nor the leadership skills a school develops. And while a good ranking can boost morale, a poor one can deflate.

But they are still worth pursuing. Such "value-added" tables could highlight the better schools as models for others while pointing out those that need improvement. They would broaden the debate about the quality of schools beyond good grounds and high fees. They would be another avenue of public accountability for schools, school systems and governments. And they would be one more piece of information parents could use in their choice of the school most suited to their child.

Crikey, is that fair dinkum?

When the Australian of the Year is announced on Sunday, it will not in all probability be Steve Irwin. The crocodile hunter, zoo owner, TV star, crikey-croaker and baby-dangler is one of the eight finalists for the award, nominated by his home state of Queensland. That nomination shows why the award cannot be taken too seriously, and why the wrong choice can be embarrassing.

The award is more egalitarian than it once was. The dames and knights and barons and cardinals from the 1970s have been usurped by doctors, scientists and sportspeople. But it is still not democratic. Sure, the masses get to nominate candidates, but it is the Federal Government that decides the result. Sponsors - this year the Commonwealth Bank and the Federal Government are major sponsors - help decide the state and territory winners, and the final winner is picked by a council appointed by cabinet and answering to the prime minister. Anti-globalisation activists need not apply.

The written criteria say the Australian of the Year should show excellence in his or her field, make a significant contribution to the community and nation, and be an inspirational role model. Account is taken, among others things, of the sacrifices made, the voluntary nature of the contribution and how much the person has put back into his or her field.

Given this, it is difficult to see why professional sportspeople bob up so often. But they do. Medicine and science are the other big contributors to the winner's list, which shows the dual nature of the award. Is it a popularity contest? If so, some form of direct vote is required, which is plainly impracticable. Or is it a means of honouring somebody who has made a genuine contribution to the country? If so, it has gone a little too readily to cricket captains, with Allan Border and Mark Taylor being rewarded mainly for playing a sport well.

This year's candidates include author Mem Fox, child protection activist Bernadette McMenamin, Aboriginal activist Pat Miller and business and community worker Michael Kent. All would be good choices. But on history, you would have to back either Judith Whitworth or Fiona Wood from medicine, or Steve Waugh to follow his two predecessors. A lot of breaths will be held if the winner is announced as "Steve ...".